The best analysis of issues surrounding the invitation-only, liberals-only "online meeting space" called JournoList is by Salon blogger and proud Democrat Mickey Kaus. Here is he on this on Bloggingheads.

Kaus's bottom line: Cocooning yourself among a pack of Like-Mindeds breeds a lazy worldview. As well as plenty of opportunities by your fellow Like-Mindeds to lobby you to think like the rest of the Pod People. Here is Kaus on an example of this.

An additional point: Who is the right's Mickey Kaus? The guy constantly and brilliantly critiques his own team. Every conservative should read this guy. His relentless and authoritative analysis of the "card check" issue, for instance, is informing as well as entertaining. Read and learn.

So, to sum up: Mickey, I respect you. But, for the record, that's not the same as BOWING to you. Not at all. Not even close. This is NOT a bow. Nooo. 

WhiteHouse.gov is tanking. I realize that just about everybody including at least some conservatives have praised the thing already. I just believe the whole project has failed utterly, and this fact is slowly sinking in. So the question: What can Republicans learn from this? The answer: plenty.

Jose Antonio Vargas's detailed piece in the Washington Post Monday is headlined: Web-Savvy Obama Team Hits Unexpected Bumps. Issues of Technology, Security and Privacy Slow the New Administration's Effort to Foster Instant Communication:

"The team that ran the most technologically advanced presidential campaign in modern history is finding it difficult to adapt that model to government. WhiteHouse.gov, envisioned as the primary vehicle for President Obama to communicate with the online masses, has been overwhelmed by challenges that staffers did not foresee and technological problems they have yet to solve."

So much to like here. How about: "Challenges that staffers did not foresee." How can that be possible when we are talking about the Obama team?

It turns out the Wisdom of the Masses comes through with some analysis that makes a lot of sense, in the comments following the piece at WashingtonPost.com. They are smart as well as fun to read. Here are a couple, emphasis added by me:

"The Post could have pointed out the Administration changed its five-day policy on the fly only when the Stimulus Bill could not stand the light of day. The bill had to pass with urgency, without the Congress even having time to read it and the White House not posting it for five days, even though the President didn't sign it for four days while he was on vacation."

This refers to the much-praised announcement that the Obama team would post legislation on the Web five days before the president is scheduled to sign it, ostensibly to collect public comments. This struck me as well. Not only because something like this is clearly set up for show instead of as a way to seriously impact the actual thinking of the president. How could it? Anybody who knows how Washington works knows this. And also because: How could anybody have bought into this at all?

These two comments deserved to be grouped together:

"I do not want any e-mail updates from the White House. I would like him to do NOTHING for a week of two, so the stock market can recover to at least 8,000. When it does I am out of there, losses and all."

"Don't take yourself so seriously, Sir. I'm 62 years old and I really can't remembering having so many encounters with any other Presidents on TV, ever from any President since 1955. With the 24 hour news cycle, we get plenty of you as it is."

Great advice. What about this over-saturation argument? This is something nobody in the message world seems to be talking about. And: You think people 62 years old should be ignored? There is a better and better chance that this guy is going to live happily and VOTE early and often for another 30 years. His views matter. So the obvious question for those of us watching the Obama crowd ignore this guy: How can technology help us reach people who are not 18-35?

And, the key comment:

" 'The team that ran the most technologically advanced presidential campaign in modern history is finding it difficult to adapt that model to government.' Whaaaaa??? You mean campaigning & governing are different? It's harder to promise than deliver? Really?"

The intense effort out there to use technology in campaigns is impressive. Somebody needs to focus as intently on its use and value to governing. The impact that so many Republican members of Congress on Twitter have had is a great start. But again, much of this seems to be about partisan strategy and fighting the daily political wars. What about ways to use technology by those in government to listen? To find solutions outside of winning and losing daily news cycles?

What elected official is using Twitter or any other tool in innovative ways to discuss and share and then collect solutions to, say, Social Security solvency? To reduce college costs? To honestly confront this country's failings in K-12? What elected official at any level is leading this and figuring this out? These are issues and challenges conservatives should be investigating and thinking about.

So many more great comments. I will add just one:

"What's the new web page number?"

As I tweet away throughout the day, often with plenty of partisan gusto, I wonder: too harsh? Today I tweeted that the Washington Post has outed former LBJ confidant and current lefty-crank Bill Moyers as a homophobe. But it seems that most people I follow do not tweet their views so directly. They tweet with the aim of building familiarity and community with their followers. Which really is what Twitter is best at, likely. But it really is too early to tell. Or is it?

Happily, columist and blogger Michelle Malkin and a few others I follow provide me with regular doses of partisan angst. But for the most part, much of the tweets I read from many conservatives do not aim at culture-war-related topics. At times it seems that the world is not up to so much dust-stirring anymore. At least through Twitter.

I think this can be a good thing.

So I am learning as I think about this. Example: A couple weeks back I saw an interview Michael Goldfarb, former McCain campaign blogger, gave to Columbia Journalism Review. And I lost it. The guy absolutely failed his candidate by essentially quitting his job early, days before the election, and then whined and complained to a very liberal publication all about it. Everything conservative took a hit that day. I was incensed. I wrote a long, fabulous blog post all about this. And then did not publish it. But I sure felt better.

You gotta' have passion to be a conservative these days.  But you gotta' think, too. Complaining ceaselessly about the bias of the New York Times won't change anything. Calmly and precisely and relentlessly focusing on building new networks around creating and sharing information outside of the mainstream media will be and IS ALREADY worth so much more. 

Either way, as one of the more calm but effective voices out there on my side, Newt Gingrich, tweeted today: "We are going to have a lot of opportunities to develop efffective conservatism given the mess the left is going to make."

That fires me up.

I don't think there is anything wrong in tweeting your emotion of the moment. But I am learning that more people are more interested in the calmer side. It translates cleaner and quicker. So for those following me [@ccwriter], look for tweets focused on how Republicans can gain ground, through use of tech and otherwise. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

And for Michael Goldfarb: Dude, you are so damn lucky. Have a great day!

The near total disaster of the launch of the new WhiteHouse.gov has been met with such bizarre cheerleading across the fruited plain.

The site's blog is pointless and empty of any value-add to the sight whatsoever.  There is no component like MyBO. And then of course, they can't figure out how to send an email. The excuse-making is continuous from inside the White House. But also from outside:

“We need to give the new administration some time to settle in and figure out what else they are doing with Whitehouse.gov and give the other government offices some time to look at the example being set and determine what else they can do to augment their current efforts,” she said.

And:

Last week I suggested in the Daily Digest that Phillips and his team nip criticisms of the site in the bud by posting a "Hey, we're still trying to find the bathrooms, people. So settle down people and try to maintain some reasonable expectations" note to the blog. It looks like that's what they've done.

Oh, so very much to say. I'll keep it brief.

No, we don't need to give the new administration any goddamn time at all to "settle in." Of course we don't, not when they are already the tech savviest administration in history.

The Washington Post saw some of this when it took a look last week:

By late evening, the vaunted new White House Web site did not offer any updated posts about President Obama's busy first day on the job, which included an inaugural prayer service, an open house with the public, and meetings with his economic and national security teams.

Nor did the site reflect the transparency Obama promised to deliver. "The President has not yet issued any executive orders," it stated hours after Obama issued executive orders to tighten ethics rules, enhance Freedom of Information Act rules and freeze the salaries of White House officials who earn more than $100,000.

The site was updated for the first time last night, when information on the executive orders was added. But there were still no pool reports or blog entries.

No one could quite explain the problem -- but they swore it would be fixed.

That's good enough for me!

Even some conservatives are somehow standing in awe.

It's a flop, people. Stand up.

Ironically, since the change-over at WhiteHouse.gov, much more attention has been paid to how the previous administration ran the site. At my blog, I detail an effort to spread a tale claiming the Bush team coded many of its files on the site so they would remain basically hidden from search. The tale is false and was shot down quickly. But the effort to make the charge go viral continues.

If any of these WhiteHouse.gov rollout failures had occurred during the first week of a McCain administration, for instance, the story of course would be completely opposite. Such continual pratfalls would in that case certainly be evidence of the least tech savviest administration in history.

Same facts, different political party in charge. So then the result would of course be a vastly different narrative.

"So settle down and try and maintain some reasonable expectations, people." Oh, yeah?

Prediction: After some smoke and fire, over time Obama's Web efforts will ultimately turn out to be more about wrangling his "network" to get him re-elected, and less about governing.

Much less.

The slobbering love affair just continues.

I knew they would be out there. In moments, Twitter Search proved me right:

@scooplarue: Anyone else sick of Digg being nothing but a propaganda vehicle for Bush Derangement Syndrome and the jihad against conservatism? #TCOT

And:

@duperdave: 7 reasons why I hate digg. 1. Bush is satan! 2. Obama is god! 3. Obama's blackberry is Jesus! 4. I love the enviroment! ...

The technical term for this is 'leveraging social media brands.' Or, more specifically: frustration at the fact that the other team does it better than you. But these explanations still neglect to include an adequate description of a particular self-conscious, spoiled-juvenile rage that is often at the root of what motivates much of this success on the left, of a type described by Michael Gerson in today's Washington Post:

Most of us have witnessed this attitude, usually in college. The kids who employed contempt instead of argument, who shouted down speakers they didn't agree with, who thought anyone who contradicted them had a lower IQ, who talked of "reason" while exhibiting little of it. They were often not the brightest of bulbs. Most people recover from this childish affliction. Some do not.

And now the shouting is happening in new ways. In spaces open to the masses. So the question becomes: To what extent should conservatives get involved in this behavior on/at/among these established networks?

Or should conservatives make a deliberate move away from trying to emulate the rage of their opponents here? Is 'competing' at Digg a waste of time for conservatives?

I think pushing links and articles and posts that tout your side and doing so effectively does not by itself signal "derangement." I think that is too easy. But it plays a role, as these two tweeters point out.

Mass use of Digg to push agendas in this way has been with us for awhile. But more individuals and groups are getting into it. And there is more to come. Digg "Action Alerts" are big among some anti-Israel groups, for instance. And pro-Israel forces, strong on Facebook, are encouraged to catch up on Digg. [Israel and the Web: sounds like the next way-too-long cover story at Atlantic Monthly.]
A discussion of whether Digg is "anti-Israel" is here. Not surprisingly, it's not really much of a "discussion." One thing is unclear: If "Digg is anti-Israel," do we mean those who run the site itself, or the community that shows up every day there?

If the Digg wars are lost, or seem lost, so what. Find new ways to win. This really isn't all that Digg is about anyway. Conservatives know just what is effective message delivery, message sharing, and community building. Rage is not essential to any of those. We will never, ever be able to out outrage these people. Never.

And so of course, as I get set to sign off on this, CNN's "Digg Dialogue" conducts an interview with John Boehner.  Proof Digg is not biased! But even though the video is dated today, it won't run, for some reason.

Derangement is building. I can feel it.

I ventured to WhiteHouse.gov a couple days ago and downloaded several documents about the accomplishments of the Bush team. Get 'em while they're hot.

As I toured through the site, I generally was impressed by both the content and the presentation. Various thoughts came to mind. Example: Remember all of the hosanahs from the mainstream media when the Obama campaign put up its Stop the Smears site, as if it was some sort of brilliant concept? Back in July, NPR reported it like this:

"The site is a response to continuing viral efforts to peg Obama as a Muslim or a dangerous radical. It's part of the increasing role of the Internet in campaigns — political and business — and the ability of anonymous activists to spread rumors literally everywhere at once."

It turns out that George Bush's WhiteHouse.gov archive of its Setting the Record Straight section extends four years.

This White House was of course the first with a rigorous online presence. The contribution of the Bush administration in this regard will of course not be a part of the official narrative. How this all works is no surprise. The reigning meme out there goes like this: When Republicans get it right online, and/or do it well, then it doesn't matter. Or doesn't matter anymore.

So when a founder of Faceboook joined the Obama campaign, this signaled brilliant strategy. But when the usual suspects suddenly figure out that Republicans have moved very quickly and effectively into the social media universe as well, the rules have suddenly changed,because, their argument goes, Republicans just don't get that suddenly Facebook is so five minutes ago. (Even if 150 million registered users may not agree.)

Another example, also from the campaign, is this headline over a post by Newsweek blogger Andrew Romano: Obama's Official Blog is Boring. McCain's is Enjoyable. Why That's Bad News for the GOP.

So even when it's better, it's not.

And even when it is record-setting, it's bad: Fifty-two consecutive months of economic growth. But it doesn't count.

So if the world is not oriented to notice when Republicans get it right online, the question persists: When Republicans get it right online, how will we know?

Perhaps Google will tell us.

I ask because after reading Perry Bacon Jr.'s recent piece at WashingtonPost.com, headlined "Bush Tells His Party to be 'Open Minded'," I came across this typical asinine comment [8:07 p.m. on 1/11] from a hard-working Bush hater, who inadvertently raises a key point: " ... Imagine [Bush's] surprise in finding that the sixth result to a Google search on 'George W. Bush' is side by side photos comparing George W. Bush to a chimpanzee."

The noise war rages, and so what. But, from one point of view anyway, a perfectly legitimate question to ask is: Could this be a perfect description of the new political battlefield? In other words: Win the "Google Primary," and you win ... what? Nothing more than fuel for the rage addicted? Or perhaps: Enough changed minds to win a close election?

If Republican technology capacity stays a secret, at least with those who determine conventional wisdom, perhaps that's a good thing. Under the radar is not a bad place to be at times like these. As the encouraging examples add up. A friend whose blog about public relations issues is called GRPR, and is from Michigan, home to Saul Anuzis, emailed me this week: "Blogged about the Anuzis video and web site. Within minutes I am being followed on Twitter by Anuzis' campaign manager in Lansing."

Anyway, you might want to peruse this solid example of Setting the Record Straight, as well as grab your copy of  "A Charge Kept" while you can. The clock is ticking.

Mainstream media's description for one of its favorite obsessions since the election is watching how Obama will deploy his "Internet Army." Their words.

But the truth of course is that deployment is long past, and that at least some of the deployed sound as if they only await their next orders. And I think much can be learned from this. Which leads me to point out this fascinating tweet I saw recently, from an apparent Obama supporter, that I think offers some insight:

Wouldn't it be something if, before Obama takes office, his team could send a single tweet to all @barackobama followers with a directive?

With a ... what?

I replied: "The question some of us would gently offer: What is a 'directive'? And: What exactly is the need to be continually 'directed.' "

His reply to me: "Directive, as in a tweet to direct tweeps to somewhere else." No reply at all to my second question.

So there you have it. The desire and even the joy in being directed. So, I wonder: Could it be that perhaps those from one side seek this experience much more than those from the other, and maybe that alone could explain at least some of the sucess of Team MyBo?

Every campaign seeks to induce as many people as it can to vote for its candidate. And/or to write a check. And now we know that other tasks can be directed or induced or inspired as well: Host a house party. Install a donation widget on your blog. Etc. To induce action is the goal, obviously. But are we all the same in this regard? Not to dive into this too deeply, but could it be that many who turned out to be on the Obama side were simply more easily 'directed'? And why couldn't that explain the impact of all those texts and posts and videos on some, but not others? Or why one party figured this out ahead of the other?

Maybe because the issues here address sociology and psychology as much as technology.

A number of years ago, the Washington Post got into trouble by making a similar-sounding argument in an odious story about conservative Christians. That they are easily "led," or something close. For which I believe it apologized, to some extent, if memory serves. But I am not making that argument here. It is not about whether Dems or Republicans are more likely to fall under the control of the nearest cult. It's not about control at all. It's simply about how you react when you read that quote from the guy who tweeted his excitement and desire to receive a "directive." You either recoiled or you did not. I did. Is there a recoil vote out there large enough to care about? I say there is. And I will bet that most are people who would lean Republican. What type of online content or social media outreach engages these voters, vs. anybody else?

At some point it seems worth some time and money to learn more about the intended targeted receivers of all this, and what are their interests and preferences. All those boasts from the Obama campaign about 100 million video views undoubtedly has had a huge, gasping impact on many who vote for Republicans, who would like to be able to claim the same thing. But who exactly viewed this stuff? How did those who would more likely vote for Republicans view and share and participate on the Web vs. anybody else? We need more data, before heading out to emulate or being so quick to praise.

And, don't forget: One type of 'directing' from the Obama Web team during the campaign that got little coverage in mainstream media was/is its capacity to activate a vast and effective media bullying operation. Just ask Stanley Kurtz. My guess is that waiting for mainstream media to discover these bizarre uses of the MyBo operation that are something less than shiny and polite is a waste of time. Talk about a pack that could benefit from some directives.